On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:18:12AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bas Wijnen <wijnen@debian.org> writes: > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 04:16:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> But more fundamentally it doesn't matter. Combining things that were > >> proposed separately seems to be clearly overreaching the authority of > >> the Secretary, as there's nothing in "Standard Resolution Procedures" > >> which allows this to be done. > > > > IMO A.1.1 allows this, > > Where? That states how you make an amendment. It doesn't say that the > secretary can declare something that isn't an amendment to be an > amendment so far as I can tell. It says "according to the requirements for a new resolution", which seems to allow things proposed as a new resolution to really be amendments. I admit it's not really clear, and can as well mean that an amendment is something different which only has the same requirements. > > and A.3.4 of course means that the secretary's opinion on this is the > > "correct" one. > > Yes, agreed, but I can still disagree with that decision and say that it > feels like overreaching to decide it that way. Of course. > >> No, it's not. It says nothing at all about a delegate decision > >> violating either the constitution or the DFSG. The wording of choice > >> one is a delegate decision override, not a statement about what is and > >> is not in the consitution or the DFSG, except that it doesn't even > >> mention there *was* a delegate decision. > > > > I agree that the wording of several options, including 1 and 5, is very > > vague. I assumed that it was clear that ignoring a DFSG violation for a > > release is in itself a violation of the DFSG. This view is appearantly > > not shared by everyone. > > Surely you realize that this phrasing is highly controversial and > confrontational, given that the release team doesn't believe that they're > ignoring the DFSG? Are you talking about my wording, or about the wording of the options? I'm sorry, but I don't see controversy or confrontation in any of them. If you're talking about my text, then I apologize to anyone who is hurt by it; that was not my intention at all. > I don't believe they are either. Neither do I. The reason I asked was because you seemed to say that they were, and that FD would allow them to continue doing that. I now understand that you didn't mean that. > I really wish people would stop accusing other project members of > ignoring the DFSG even if you disagree strongly with their > interpretation of how the DFSG is applied. I think you are talking about me here. I haven't actually seen anyone making this accusation. The only time it was mentioned was when I asked you if this was what you meant. To be clear, I immediately followed it with a statement saying that I didn't actually think so myself. > If there were something in the constitution detailing decision-making > process around foundation documents and their interpretation, it would > have made this whole conflict easier to resolve. But so far as I can > tell, there isn't, apart from application to voting specifically. Any > such decisions therefore, under the constitution, are resolved the same > way as any other delegate decision so far as I can tell. There's no > special magic that applies because one thinks a delegate decision violates > a foundation document, nor any pre-emptive rejection of such a decision. > > As near as I can tell, the only thing that binds individual developers to > follow the foundation documents are the promises that we all made when we > joined the project to do so, which means that our understanding and > interpretation of what they mean and how they should be applied is what is > most relevant in the absence of a GR override of a decision. I think I agree with this... However, it means that if anyone (delegate or other DD) is violating a foundation document, only a 1:1 majority is needed to allow it by not deciding to forbid it. That does seem rather strange, since 3:1 would be required (IMO at least) to explicitly decide that it is allowed. > It's kind of an intriguing way of organizing it. I'm not sure this is a > bad thing. I would have to think about that as well. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature